There are many themes that appear in Gandhi’s Hindu Swaraj. Of which, I found the most interesting to be about civilization.
Civilization can be seen in many different lights. In our current culture, it is something to be celebrated, modernized, and expanded. In other cultures, it is seen as destructive, hindering, and unequal. Only recently have these opposing ideas started to spread among our population.
The Editor of “The Condition of India” states:
“It is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down not under the English heel but under that of modern civilisation. It is groaning under the monster’s terrible weight. There is yet time to escape it, but every day makes it more and more difficult.” (pg. 42)
Personally, I make a connection between Gandhi and Thoreau during this passage. Both realize that the civilization of man has become destructive to their well-being, a ‘monster’ that becomes more integrated into society every day, hence it is harder to rid ourselves of it.
In “The Conditions of India: Railways,” the editor even mentions:
“EDITOR: Railways, lawyers and doctors have impoverished the country, so much so that, if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined…Civilisation is such a disease, and we have to be very wary.” (pg. 47)
This is my question: Do you agree with Gandhi that civilization is something to ‘escape’? What are some differences between Gandhi and Thoreau? What are some more similarities? Can civilization become something to embrace rather than fear? How?
In Walden, Thoreau describes escaping to the wilderness to get away from civilization so that he may live without the things of man for a time. He recognizes that civilization has become a product of human greed and consumption, and argues for his four necessities of life; food, shelter, clothing and fuel. While Gandhi’s approach is different, he too recognizes the failings of modern civilization.
Gandhi claims that the state of India is not to be blamed on colonialism, but modern civilization, which encourages us to prioritize our physical welfare. He argues that everything from transportation to medical services encourage this.
In “The Conditions of India: Doctors” the editor states “…their business is really to rid the body of diseases that may afflict it. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our negligence or indulgence. I over-eat, I have indigestion, I go to a doctor, he gives me medicine, I am cured, I over-eat again, and I take his pills again. Had I not taken the pills in the first instance, I would have suffered the punishment deserved by me, and I would not have over-eaten again. The doctor intervened and helped me to indulge myself. My body thereby certainly felt more at ease, but my mind became weakened. A continuance of a course of a medicine must, therefore, result in loss of control over the mind.”
My question is do you think that Gandhi is correct in his claims about modern medical practitioners? Is modern medicine a product of our overindulgence and overconsumption? Would Thoreau agree with Gandhi’s views on modern civilization?
Mahatma Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, presents a compelling vision of India’s future based on non-violence, self-reliance, and unity. The chapter “The Condition of India: The Hindus and Mahomedans” explores the complex relationships between different religious communities in India, particularly Hindus and Muslims. “The English have taught us that we were not one nation before and that it will require centuries before we become one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation before they came to India. One thought inspired us.”
What does Gandhi mean when he says that “one thought inspired us”? How does this challenge the colonial narrative of division among Indian communities?
Within Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, a theme of national identity makes itself apparent. This is brought up during the discussion of the Partition of Bengal, urging an awakening within India. There is such discontent with English rule within India and a symptom of this is civic unrest. This disconnect also comes from the rule of colonialism and the modern civilization. The unrest will only end when India wakes up and recognizes themselves as an independent nation with their own national identity. English rule is brutal but the reader is only focusing on the problem, while the editor is trying to come up with solutions. The solutions can only come when that national identity is fully realized. Peacefulness is a strong ideal within Gandhi, but that does not mean rebellion is not an option. “The English have not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them”. The English have pushed forward this idea that they hold superiority and are the epitome of civilization. However, their control is not due to their power, but due to the unrest and uncertainly within India. Gandhi is certain that everyone is capable of change and that change has to come from within for India to be an independent state. The population of India may be fractured, but it is not broken. My question: Can the problem of modern civilization also be used as a solution? How or how not? Could the very thing diving a nation bring back unity or is an entirely new social structure required?
I found Gandhi’s opinion on lawyers and doctors to be very interesting, especially in the context of western civilization. Gandhi points out that both doctors and lawyers are no more important than any other occupation, and if anything, they are worse morally than most others. He believes that lawyers only exacerbate problems that are brought to them and that doctors encourage us to continue being unhealthy as long as we take their medicine.
Some important questions Gandhi brings up are: “Why do they want more fees than common labourers? Why are their requirements greater? In what way are they more profitable to the country than the labourers? Are those who do good entitled to greater payment? And, if they have done anything for the country for the sake of money, how shall it be counted as good?”.
These questions are interesting because many people in the U.S. ask similar questions about why health insurance is so expensive, or why lawyer and court fees must put people into debt just to get justice for an injustice that has taken place. With regards to healthcare, Gandhi does point out that “in the West a school of thought is rising … [which] … relies less on drugs and more on nature as a powerful healing agent,”.
My questions regarding these two occupations are: Would the fees for these services be as expensive if the education required to become a doctor or lawyer was less expensive? How does Gandhi selectively praise certain lawyers and doctors but condemn others without knowledge of their record? And finally, how does Gandhi’s experience with western civilization affect his view of law and medicine, and if India had been the leaders in law and medicine as he says the West is, would he be more approving of it?
One thing that stuck out to me in Gandhi’s reading was his unwillingness to let the blame be solely placed on the British. While he recognizes the injustices they committed against the Indian People, he points out the complicity of the Indian people. He also shames them for acts of violence, claiming they are acting the same as the British they despise, “My countrymen impute the evils of modern civilisation to the English people and, therefore, believe that the English people are bad, and not the civilisation they represent. My countrymen, therefore, believe that they should adopt modern civilization and modern methods of violence to drive out the English.” Adopting violent methods from your oppressors to protest the very same people appears counterintuitive to Gandhi. He calls for the Indian people to be better, and represent their own culture that praises peace. It calls to question is violence human nature? Is that why some of the Indian people, as well as the British, choose violence? Or has it been enculturated into those tied up in this colonial world? Whether that is being the violent oppressor or the oppressed they are exposed to violence in their daily lives. However the Indian people, like Gandhi, who hold onto their past, despite their present, appear to choose peace and share it with those who have forgotten tradition. Which brings me to my final question are traditional societies more civilized than modern? For modern societies thrive on violence, making it, in my eyes, much more savage.
I find Gandhi’s perspective of civilization, England’s occupation, and the loss of religion in India to be very fascinating. The way he’s set up the book and his discussion of Swaraj is that there’s a person clearly trying to challenge him, but he is set in his ways and ideas of what is going on. He tends to skew towards the idea that England is not at fault for the way things are going, that they were welcomed in. “The causes that gave them India enable them to retain it. Some Englishmen state that they took, and they hold, India by the sword. Both these statements are wrong. The sword is entirely useless for holding India. We alone keep them.” He also discusses civilization as something heavy that weighs on them, that is a condition of modernity and it is a disease. My question is; There is a clear connection between the drive of modernity and the English hold on India. Why do you think Gandhi insists there is still some separation there? If they have willingly let England in, why do they keep them even if the modernity is causing the country to go bad? Is it just for the sake of economy? I wonder also what Thoreau would think on his thoughts on modernity and civilization. “Railways, lawyers and doctors have impoverished the country, so much so that, if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined.” Would Thoreau agree with this statement, as Thoreau shared his own thoughts on transportation and education?
After reading this week’s text one in particular that stuck with me was “The Condition of India: Lawyers” In Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj. Within this chapter the debate of professions and social status are analyzed in a manner that exploits the lawyer profession and the social constructs of India’s different communities. The best way to summarize this text would be to first understand that bases of law and the implications it can have on society. The editor writes, “The Hindus and the Mahomedans have quarreled. An ordinary man will ask them to forget all about it, he will tell them that both must be more or less at fault and will advise them no longer to quarrel.” In my eyes this is a typical assumption of a problem and a manner in which to remedy it within societal norms. But when bringing a lawyer into the equation the editor states, “The latter’s duty is to side with their clients, and to find out ways and arguments in favor of the clients to which they (the clients) are often strangers. If they do not do so, they will be considered to have degraded their profession. The lawyers, therefore, will as a rule, advance quarrels, instead of repressing them. Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves. It is one of the avenues of becoming wealthy, and their interest exists in multiplying disputes.”
In summary, this assumption of lawyers as a whole is speculative and up for debate in many social circles. What is not up for debate is the basis of their career is to solve disputes that inherently pay more money to each lawyer if the trial takes longer or is drawn out until closure.
In Gandhi’s perspective (as a lawyer himself), he states “‘I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder. The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me that a large part of my time during the twenty years of my practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private compromises of hundreds of cases. I lost nothing thereby – not even money, certainly not my soul’ (CW 39: 111). section 109
What is meant by this is that there are better remedies for solving issues other than obtaining lawyers assistance. In Gandhi’s perspective their pay should come from a salary within the state or government each lawyer serves. This perspective stuck with me and made me think of two key questions this week.
What are the key determinants within a society that causes the infiltration of a lawyer into a public disagreement?
If Gandhi’s opinions are right… How does his model apply to each country and where would we be if time and money were not wasted on the quarrels between neighbors, friends, strangers etc.?
In the first passage, Gandhi criticizes the Indian people for using violence like the British, arguing that it’s not the right way to fight oppression. He urges Indians to embrace their peaceful traditions instead of doing the same thing that the people that had colonized them had done. This raises questions about whether violence is part of human nature or learned from colonialism. This is something super interesting to me because it seems as though violence has always been a part of human genes from everything we know about hunter gatherers. This is even true for medieval times, revolutionary times and definitely in the current times. This is intriguing however, because we have seen certain groups of people seem to have no hate or violence in their blood but can begin to develop this nature but why?
The second passage discusses how lawyers in India often prolong conflicts for financial gain. Gandhi, as a lawyer, believed his job was to resolve disputes peacefully, even if it meant earning less money.
The third passage highlights different views on civilization. While modern civilization is often praised, some cultures see it as harmful and unequal, and this critical view has only recently gained attention.
In the first passage, Gandhi criticizes the Indian people for using violence like the British, arguing that it’s not the right way to fight oppression. He urges Indians to embrace their peaceful traditions instead of doing the same thing that the people that had colonized them had done. This raises questions about whether violence is part of human nature or learned from colonialism. This is something super interesting to me because it seems as though violence has always been a part of human genes from everything we know about hunter gatherers. This is even true for medieval times, revolutionary times and definitely in the current times. This is intriguing however, because we have seen certain groups of people seem to have no hate or violence in their blood but can begin to develop this nature but why?
The second passage discusses how lawyers in India often prolong conflicts for financial gain. Gandhi, as a lawyer, believed his job was to resolve disputes peacefully, even if it meant earning less money.
The third passage highlights different views on civilization. While modern civilization is often praised, some cultures see it as harmful and unequal, and this critical view has only recently gained attention.
Question: We would most definitely be better off as a society if we focused on making the world right and making the right choices as opposed to money, but how would this be able to be implemented into western society with centuries of a culture that pushes to earn the most amount of money that you can?
In Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, he talks extensively of the need to avoid violence and free India from British rule through nonviolent measures, driven by mass mobilization of the common people. In the chapter discussing Italy as a corollary study, the editor says that to fight openly would be “to make the holy land of India unholy” (77). He instead claims that to do so would be to “kill ourselves” and the people of India; seeking freedom through assassination would be “cowardly.” He argues that the end result of such a fight for freedom would be an India the same as Europe, tainted by armament and the nation would be unstable in its new state.
Given the reality of how the India revolution occurred, with thousands of civilians beaten and jailed and many killed as well (Wikipedia cites the number of excess mortality at north of 1 million). Can moral superiority be claimed over a path of traditional warfare? Gandhi and other revolutionary leaders called on the populace to sacrifice themselves and voluntarily go against the might of the British Raj, yet explicitly denounced fighting back. Undoubtedly, the conflict shaped the culture of India to this day, but did the nonviolent approach adequately expel the English influence on the subcontinent? Could a violent revolution in India lead to a lasting peace–such as there is today with India being the largest democracy in the world?
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi stresses the importance of non-violent resistance and non-governmental social action. In chapter 11 “The Condition of India: Lawyers,” Gandhi shows dismay at the prospect of lawyers involvement in the case of disputes between two individuals. Stating that lawyers are money grabbers that rely on conflict in order to make a living, and that “men were less unmanly when they settled their disputes either by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide for them,” where the Gandhi reflects back to self determination (Chapter 11).
My question for today is, does Gandhi not value the court of law because he does not value government interference in social aspects, or does he not value the court of law because the imperialist government at the time in India had consistently failed Indians?
What does Gandhi mean when he says that civilization is something to escape? Could his meaning here be connected to his opinions on medical practitioners? and his feelings that this form of modern medicine is causing our overconsumption?
In Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, he focuses on the social and economic impact of British rule in India. He leans in on the idea that Western technologies and industrialization has negatively impacted traditional Indian life and the values of its people. Rather than aiding the general population, they frequently serve the interests of its colonial rulers. In chapter V, “The Conditions of India”, he quotes “Under the Prime Minister, its movement is not steady, but is buffeted about like a prostitute. The Prime Minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare of the Parliament” (31). Gandhi compares parliament to that of a “sterile woman” and a prostitute. This metaphor compares a prostitute being seen as easily swayed /controlled by external forces for personal gain to the Prime Minister’s leadership being driven by self-interest rather than a loyal form of governance for the people. I believe that this comparison somewhat oversimplifies the complex nature of the political system, it doesn’t address the systemic factors that play into it.
Gandhi’s provocative metaphor of a prostitute and the Parliament was criticized by many, he even stated in a footnote that it was “the only word he was prepared to drop from the book” and he regretted using it. In what ways other than minimizing the characteristics of the complex system can Gandhi be critiqued for this metaphor? Can you think of a better comparison other than a prostitute/sterile woman?
In this particular reading, Ghandi lays out the framework for his ideas of breaking the binds of colonialism in mainland India. He words it in such a way that the general populous of India can understand, utilizing a question and answer format, and uses simple language due to the low levels of basic education at the time of its publication in India. In doing so, Ghandi was able to eventually break those binds, and leave India a free nation. However, one part of the reading stuck out to me. In Chapter III titled Discontent and Unrest, Ghandi introduces this idea that discontent and unrest at one time were considered the same word, but in the case of India, it is very different.
The specific part that stuck out to me was the metaphorical use of comparing the ‘awakening’ to ‘waking up.’ He describes the point of awakening crucial to being fully awake, and that people are starting to become aware of the ongoing issues.
He also compares discontent and unrest. In order for a state to be considered in unrest, they must at first experience discontent. This discontentment leads to unrest, because a society may realize the only way to break out of the binds of discontentment is to be unrestful.
My question is, when is a society no longer in discontentment, according to Ghandi? Essentially, what I am asking is when does a level of discontent reach the level of unrest, and how does a society approach it without causing a societal uproar. Can a society skip the level of discontentment, and immediately reach a level of unrest, or is it crucial for a society to experience unrest so that it doesn’t overwhelm the general populous?
For this week’s discussion, I want to talk about cities. As Americans, we take great pride in our cities we have build and the industry surrounding them. In our readings, the conditions of cities in India’s cities in noted by Gandhi. He says, “They further reasoned that large cities were a snare and a useless encumbrance, and that people would not be happy in them, that there would be gangs of thieves and robbers, prostitution and vice flourishing in them, and that poor men would be robbed by rich men. They were, therefore, satisfied with small villages”. (Ch. 13)
I really liked this message because this past summer I went to New York City for this first time and truly hated it. I saw all of the things Gandhi writes about. It made me sick being in that city, I had no peace. I saw homelessness, anger, criminals being arrested, people suffering from addiction, and the whole city smelled horribly.
When I read this part of the chapter, I was brought back these memories of NYC. Of course, India and the United States are different, but these same concepts still exist. It makes me wonder how I had been conditioned from a young age to idealize places like NYC, LA, or Miami. I think it is a part of American culture and media, and it leads me to my question. Instead of having pride in our big cities, should we have more disdain ?
I found the statement within the Swaraj that interested me.
“Politics, economics, ethics, aesthetics, and spirituality, according to Gandhi, should operate interactively and not in isolation from one another.”
As this outlines the importance of these ideas to culture,
I’m curious whether this means that in order to create these ideals of uniformity and how society is currently run, are these the leverage points of choice? And is isolating these ideas and aspects of culture what dependency bridges on?
Another quote that this leads me to is that
“A transformation in the existing religious consciousness must occur. Otherwise, there would be unresolved tension between the old religious consciousness and the new civic consciousness.”
As this makes me wonder whether once a thought process similar to consumerism is formed psychologically in society. whether that thought process of culture over consumerism or vice versa is the psychological and “unresolved tension” that we currently experience in environmentalism?
A theme that was consistent in the dialogue between the reader and editor was this “debate” over if Englishman themselves or civilization is the problem in India. I personally saw colonization as the issue because it progressed partly with the belief that civilization was the best way to modernize because it encompassed ideas that were seen as superior. Though a quote from page 33 made me think differently about what the editor is trying to communicate about civilization. “Is not due to any particular fault of the English people, but the condition is due to modern civilization.” Further on page 17 it says, “if we shun every Englishman as an enemy. Home Rule will be delayed. But if we are just to them, we shall receive their support in our progress towards the goal.” Both quotes embody a theme which is insinuating that the individual is not the issue but rather the structural institutions that were imposed upon them. This is why I link it to colonization because Britain is the oppressor that has been imposing ideas and methods that they deemed as superior through the explanation that civilization is the best and only way to adapt. With this said, do you think that individual action can dismantle structural inequalities?
“My first complaint is that India is becoming irreligious… We are turning away from God.”
In the chapter discussing India’s spiritual decline, Gandhi expresses his concerns about the loss of religious and moral values in the country due to modern civilization. Gandhi emphasizes that India is moving away from spiritual pursuits towards material wealth, leading to a weakening of religious principles. He advocated for the idea that true wealth lies in inner contentment and spiritual fulfillment rather than in the accumulation of material possessions.
The shift towards materialism and the loss of spiritual values are challenges faced not just by India but by societies globally in the modern era. How can individuals and communities strive for simplicity and spirituality in a materialistic world that often leads to a shift away from religious principles and ethical conduct? What practices or principles can help people stay connected to their spiritual roots amidst the pursuit of material wealth and modern comforts?
I found it interesting where Gandhi had criticized the Indian people because of their use of violence in fighting oppression, whereas Gandhi encouraged the use of peaceful and nonviolent resistance as a means of fighting oppression. Is the violence in “our” communities the reason that Gandhi said that civilization is something that we must escape? and why did he state that we must escape into the wilderness and leave civilization? what has led to our civilization becoming something that needs to be escaped?
Ghandi goes into great detail about the many ways in which English culture has seeped into the everyday lives of Indians. He describes lawyers and doctors as “treasure-seeking”, the former fueling others’ quarrels and the latter making the sick and wounded dependent on pills that weaken the mind and is a mere band-aid approach to healing.
“I have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, a doctor cures me, the odds are that I shall repeat the vice. Had the doctor not intervened, nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice, and would have become happy.”
According to Ghandi the role of doctors is not one of morality, but rather selfishness and greed. They create temporary solutions that don’t fix the root cause of the illness, and result in an unnatural dependence on medicine. I have similar feelings towards modern medicine. Doctors are quick so quick to recommending expensive surgeries or antibiotics as the best solution. I think these might be helpful as a last resort, but only after scanning every other mode of healing. First we should take an honest glance at our relationship with the body and mind, and ask ourselves if we are truly taking care of our needs. I must say though, this is definitely easier said than done, especially amidst the chaos of modern day society. We are constantly being pulled this way and that by greed, consumption, fear, and individualism.
My question: How can we reclaim medicine and healing as a more holistic and authentic practice?
In the reading, Ghandi puts outs the idea of breaking the connection of colonialism in India. Using simple language and putting his idea in laymans terms so that even people of lower education levels can understand and grasp the idea in which he is trying to explain. By speaking in this way he was able to leave India to be a free standing nation.
Ghandi speaks about disconnect and unrest. This. disconnect is what eventually leads to unrest. In order to break the binds of disconnect is to be unrestful.
My question is what is the line in which a society or community is in disconnect and where does the line of unrest begin in order to change and reach the level of unrest that ghandi is referring to?
Gandhi writes that it’s feeble to blame the English for their occupation in India, but rather recognize that it was the people of India who welcomed the English into their nation in the first place in the hopes to profit from trade. He believes at the root of it all, they willingly gave the country to the English. AS time goes on, Gandhi says that India keeps becoming more modern and irreligious, and is approaching the point of no return.
My question is: Could Gandhi view a society that meshes modernity with the sacred life that religion brings?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Weekly Questions: Anna Gardner
There are many themes that appear in Gandhi’s Hindu Swaraj. Of which, I found the most interesting to be about civilization.
Civilization can be seen in many different lights. In our current culture, it is something to be celebrated, modernized, and expanded. In other cultures, it is seen as destructive, hindering, and unequal. Only recently have these opposing ideas started to spread among our population.
The Editor of “The Condition of India” states:
“It is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down not under the English heel but under that of modern civilisation. It is groaning under the monster’s terrible weight. There is yet time to escape it, but every day makes it more and more difficult.” (pg. 42)
Personally, I make a connection between Gandhi and Thoreau during this passage. Both realize that the civilization of man has become destructive to their well-being, a ‘monster’ that becomes more integrated into society every day, hence it is harder to rid ourselves of it.
In “The Conditions of India: Railways,” the editor even mentions:
“EDITOR: Railways, lawyers and doctors have impoverished the country, so much so that, if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined…Civilisation is such a disease, and we have to be very wary.” (pg. 47)
This is my question: Do you agree with Gandhi that civilization is something to ‘escape’? What are some differences between Gandhi and Thoreau? What are some more similarities? Can civilization become something to embrace rather than fear? How?
By Evan Morgan
In Walden, Thoreau describes escaping to the wilderness to get away from civilization so that he may live without the things of man for a time. He recognizes that civilization has become a product of human greed and consumption, and argues for his four necessities of life; food, shelter, clothing and fuel. While Gandhi’s approach is different, he too recognizes the failings of modern civilization.
Gandhi claims that the state of India is not to be blamed on colonialism, but modern civilization, which encourages us to prioritize our physical welfare. He argues that everything from transportation to medical services encourage this.
In “The Conditions of India: Doctors” the editor states “…their business is really to rid the body of diseases that may afflict it. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our negligence or indulgence. I over-eat, I have indigestion, I go to a doctor, he gives me medicine, I am cured, I over-eat again, and I take his pills again. Had I not taken the pills in the first instance, I would have suffered the punishment deserved by me, and I would not have over-eaten again. The doctor intervened and helped me to indulge myself. My body thereby certainly felt more at ease, but my mind became weakened. A continuance of a course of a medicine must, therefore, result in loss of control over the mind.”
My question is do you think that Gandhi is correct in his claims about modern medical practitioners? Is modern medicine a product of our overindulgence and overconsumption? Would Thoreau agree with Gandhi’s views on modern civilization?
Mahatma Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, presents a compelling vision of India’s future based on non-violence, self-reliance, and unity. The chapter “The Condition of India: The Hindus and Mahomedans” explores the complex relationships between different religious communities in India, particularly Hindus and Muslims. “The English have taught us that we were not one nation before and that it will require centuries before we become one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation before they came to India. One thought inspired us.”
What does Gandhi mean when he says that “one thought inspired us”? How does this challenge the colonial narrative of division among Indian communities?
Hanna Cowles
Within Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, a theme of national identity makes itself apparent. This is brought up during the discussion of the Partition of Bengal, urging an awakening within India. There is such discontent with English rule within India and a symptom of this is civic unrest. This disconnect also comes from the rule of colonialism and the modern civilization. The unrest will only end when India wakes up and recognizes themselves as an independent nation with their own national identity. English rule is brutal but the reader is only focusing on the problem, while the editor is trying to come up with solutions. The solutions can only come when that national identity is fully realized. Peacefulness is a strong ideal within Gandhi, but that does not mean rebellion is not an option. “The English have not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not in India because of their strength, but because we keep them”. The English have pushed forward this idea that they hold superiority and are the epitome of civilization. However, their control is not due to their power, but due to the unrest and uncertainly within India. Gandhi is certain that everyone is capable of change and that change has to come from within for India to be an independent state. The population of India may be fractured, but it is not broken. My question: Can the problem of modern civilization also be used as a solution? How or how not? Could the very thing diving a nation bring back unity or is an entirely new social structure required?
I found Gandhi’s opinion on lawyers and doctors to be very interesting, especially in the context of western civilization. Gandhi points out that both doctors and lawyers are no more important than any other occupation, and if anything, they are worse morally than most others. He believes that lawyers only exacerbate problems that are brought to them and that doctors encourage us to continue being unhealthy as long as we take their medicine.
Some important questions Gandhi brings up are: “Why do they want more fees than common labourers? Why are their requirements greater? In what way are they more profitable to the country than the labourers? Are those who do good entitled to greater payment? And, if they have done anything for the country for the sake of money, how shall it be counted as good?”.
These questions are interesting because many people in the U.S. ask similar questions about why health insurance is so expensive, or why lawyer and court fees must put people into debt just to get justice for an injustice that has taken place. With regards to healthcare, Gandhi does point out that “in the West a school of thought is rising … [which] … relies less on drugs and more on nature as a powerful healing agent,”.
My questions regarding these two occupations are: Would the fees for these services be as expensive if the education required to become a doctor or lawyer was less expensive? How does Gandhi selectively praise certain lawyers and doctors but condemn others without knowledge of their record? And finally, how does Gandhi’s experience with western civilization affect his view of law and medicine, and if India had been the leaders in law and medicine as he says the West is, would he be more approving of it?
Cole Tomlin
Anna Harrison
One thing that stuck out to me in Gandhi’s reading was his unwillingness to let the blame be solely placed on the British. While he recognizes the injustices they committed against the Indian People, he points out the complicity of the Indian people. He also shames them for acts of violence, claiming they are acting the same as the British they despise, “My countrymen impute the evils of modern civilisation to the English people and, therefore, believe that the English people are bad, and not the civilisation they represent. My countrymen, therefore, believe that they should adopt modern civilization and modern methods of violence to drive out the English.” Adopting violent methods from your oppressors to protest the very same people appears counterintuitive to Gandhi. He calls for the Indian people to be better, and represent their own culture that praises peace. It calls to question is violence human nature? Is that why some of the Indian people, as well as the British, choose violence? Or has it been enculturated into those tied up in this colonial world? Whether that is being the violent oppressor or the oppressed they are exposed to violence in their daily lives. However the Indian people, like Gandhi, who hold onto their past, despite their present, appear to choose peace and share it with those who have forgotten tradition. Which brings me to my final question are traditional societies more civilized than modern? For modern societies thrive on violence, making it, in my eyes, much more savage.
Weekly Discussion: Em Morris
I find Gandhi’s perspective of civilization, England’s occupation, and the loss of religion in India to be very fascinating. The way he’s set up the book and his discussion of Swaraj is that there’s a person clearly trying to challenge him, but he is set in his ways and ideas of what is going on. He tends to skew towards the idea that England is not at fault for the way things are going, that they were welcomed in. “The causes that gave them India enable them to retain it. Some Englishmen state that they took, and they hold, India by the sword. Both these statements are wrong. The sword is entirely useless for holding India. We alone keep them.” He also discusses civilization as something heavy that weighs on them, that is a condition of modernity and it is a disease. My question is; There is a clear connection between the drive of modernity and the English hold on India. Why do you think Gandhi insists there is still some separation there? If they have willingly let England in, why do they keep them even if the modernity is causing the country to go bad? Is it just for the sake of economy? I wonder also what Thoreau would think on his thoughts on modernity and civilization. “Railways, lawyers and doctors have impoverished the country, so much so that, if we do not wake up in time, we shall be ruined.” Would Thoreau agree with this statement, as Thoreau shared his own thoughts on transportation and education?
Weekly Discussion Number 3: Cooper White
After reading this week’s text one in particular that stuck with me was “The Condition of India: Lawyers” In Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj. Within this chapter the debate of professions and social status are analyzed in a manner that exploits the lawyer profession and the social constructs of India’s different communities. The best way to summarize this text would be to first understand that bases of law and the implications it can have on society. The editor writes, “The Hindus and the Mahomedans have quarreled. An ordinary man will ask them to forget all about it, he will tell them that both must be more or less at fault and will advise them no longer to quarrel.” In my eyes this is a typical assumption of a problem and a manner in which to remedy it within societal norms. But when bringing a lawyer into the equation the editor states, “The latter’s duty is to side with their clients, and to find out ways and arguments in favor of the clients to which they (the clients) are often strangers. If they do not do so, they will be considered to have degraded their profession. The lawyers, therefore, will as a rule, advance quarrels, instead of repressing them. Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves. It is one of the avenues of becoming wealthy, and their interest exists in multiplying disputes.”
In summary, this assumption of lawyers as a whole is speculative and up for debate in many social circles. What is not up for debate is the basis of their career is to solve disputes that inherently pay more money to each lawyer if the trial takes longer or is drawn out until closure.
In Gandhi’s perspective (as a lawyer himself), he states “‘I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder. The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me that a large part of my time during the twenty years of my practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private compromises of hundreds of cases. I lost nothing thereby – not even money, certainly not my soul’ (CW 39: 111). section 109
What is meant by this is that there are better remedies for solving issues other than obtaining lawyers assistance. In Gandhi’s perspective their pay should come from a salary within the state or government each lawyer serves. This perspective stuck with me and made me think of two key questions this week.
In the first passage, Gandhi criticizes the Indian people for using violence like the British, arguing that it’s not the right way to fight oppression. He urges Indians to embrace their peaceful traditions instead of doing the same thing that the people that had colonized them had done. This raises questions about whether violence is part of human nature or learned from colonialism. This is something super interesting to me because it seems as though violence has always been a part of human genes from everything we know about hunter gatherers. This is even true for medieval times, revolutionary times and definitely in the current times. This is intriguing however, because we have seen certain groups of people seem to have no hate or violence in their blood but can begin to develop this nature but why?
The second passage discusses how lawyers in India often prolong conflicts for financial gain. Gandhi, as a lawyer, believed his job was to resolve disputes peacefully, even if it meant earning less money.
The third passage highlights different views on civilization. While modern civilization is often praised, some cultures see it as harmful and unequal, and this critical view has only recently gained attention.
Jonathan Phillips:
In the first passage, Gandhi criticizes the Indian people for using violence like the British, arguing that it’s not the right way to fight oppression. He urges Indians to embrace their peaceful traditions instead of doing the same thing that the people that had colonized them had done. This raises questions about whether violence is part of human nature or learned from colonialism. This is something super interesting to me because it seems as though violence has always been a part of human genes from everything we know about hunter gatherers. This is even true for medieval times, revolutionary times and definitely in the current times. This is intriguing however, because we have seen certain groups of people seem to have no hate or violence in their blood but can begin to develop this nature but why?
The second passage discusses how lawyers in India often prolong conflicts for financial gain. Gandhi, as a lawyer, believed his job was to resolve disputes peacefully, even if it meant earning less money.
The third passage highlights different views on civilization. While modern civilization is often praised, some cultures see it as harmful and unequal, and this critical view has only recently gained attention.
Question: We would most definitely be better off as a society if we focused on making the world right and making the right choices as opposed to money, but how would this be able to be implemented into western society with centuries of a culture that pushes to earn the most amount of money that you can?
In Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, he talks extensively of the need to avoid violence and free India from British rule through nonviolent measures, driven by mass mobilization of the common people. In the chapter discussing Italy as a corollary study, the editor says that to fight openly would be “to make the holy land of India unholy” (77). He instead claims that to do so would be to “kill ourselves” and the people of India; seeking freedom through assassination would be “cowardly.” He argues that the end result of such a fight for freedom would be an India the same as Europe, tainted by armament and the nation would be unstable in its new state.
Given the reality of how the India revolution occurred, with thousands of civilians beaten and jailed and many killed as well (Wikipedia cites the number of excess mortality at north of 1 million). Can moral superiority be claimed over a path of traditional warfare? Gandhi and other revolutionary leaders called on the populace to sacrifice themselves and voluntarily go against the might of the British Raj, yet explicitly denounced fighting back. Undoubtedly, the conflict shaped the culture of India to this day, but did the nonviolent approach adequately expel the English influence on the subcontinent? Could a violent revolution in India lead to a lasting peace–such as there is today with India being the largest democracy in the world?
Alaina Case
In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi stresses the importance of non-violent resistance and non-governmental social action. In chapter 11 “The Condition of India: Lawyers,” Gandhi shows dismay at the prospect of lawyers involvement in the case of disputes between two individuals. Stating that lawyers are money grabbers that rely on conflict in order to make a living, and that “men were less unmanly when
they settled their disputes either by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide
for them,” where the Gandhi reflects back to self determination (Chapter 11).
My question for today is, does Gandhi not value the court of law because he does not value government interference in social aspects, or does he not value the court of law because the imperialist government at the time in India had consistently failed Indians?
What does Gandhi mean when he says that civilization is something to escape? Could his meaning here be connected to his opinions on medical practitioners? and his feelings that this form of modern medicine is causing our overconsumption?
In Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, he focuses on the social and economic impact of British rule in India. He leans in on the idea that Western technologies and industrialization has negatively impacted traditional Indian life and the values of its people. Rather than aiding the general population, they frequently serve the interests of its colonial rulers. In chapter V, “The Conditions of India”, he quotes “Under the Prime Minister, its movement is not steady, but is buffeted about like a prostitute. The Prime Minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare of the Parliament” (31). Gandhi compares parliament to that of a “sterile woman” and a prostitute. This metaphor compares a prostitute being seen as easily swayed /controlled by external forces for personal gain to the Prime Minister’s leadership being driven by self-interest rather than a loyal form of governance for the people. I believe that this comparison somewhat oversimplifies the complex nature of the political system, it doesn’t address the systemic factors that play into it.
Gandhi’s provocative metaphor of a prostitute and the Parliament was criticized by many, he even stated in a footnote that it was “the only word he was prepared to drop from the book” and he regretted using it. In what ways other than minimizing the characteristics of the complex system can Gandhi be critiqued for this metaphor? Can you think of a better comparison other than a prostitute/sterile woman?
Michelle Hood
Ben Watson
In this particular reading, Ghandi lays out the framework for his ideas of breaking the binds of colonialism in mainland India. He words it in such a way that the general populous of India can understand, utilizing a question and answer format, and uses simple language due to the low levels of basic education at the time of its publication in India. In doing so, Ghandi was able to eventually break those binds, and leave India a free nation. However, one part of the reading stuck out to me. In Chapter III titled Discontent and Unrest, Ghandi introduces this idea that discontent and unrest at one time were considered the same word, but in the case of India, it is very different.
The specific part that stuck out to me was the metaphorical use of comparing the ‘awakening’ to ‘waking up.’ He describes the point of awakening crucial to being fully awake, and that people are starting to become aware of the ongoing issues.
He also compares discontent and unrest. In order for a state to be considered in unrest, they must at first experience discontent. This discontentment leads to unrest, because a society may realize the only way to break out of the binds of discontentment is to be unrestful.
My question is, when is a society no longer in discontentment, according to Ghandi? Essentially, what I am asking is when does a level of discontent reach the level of unrest, and how does a society approach it without causing a societal uproar. Can a society skip the level of discontentment, and immediately reach a level of unrest, or is it crucial for a society to experience unrest so that it doesn’t overwhelm the general populous?
Cecilia Roche —
For this week’s discussion, I want to talk about cities. As Americans, we take great pride in our cities we have build and the industry surrounding them. In our readings, the conditions of cities in India’s cities in noted by Gandhi. He says, “They further reasoned that large cities were a snare and a useless encumbrance, and that people would not be happy in them, that there would be gangs of thieves and robbers, prostitution and vice flourishing in them, and that poor men would be robbed by rich men. They were, therefore, satisfied with small villages”. (Ch. 13)
I really liked this message because this past summer I went to New York City for this first time and truly hated it. I saw all of the things Gandhi writes about. It made me sick being in that city, I had no peace. I saw homelessness, anger, criminals being arrested, people suffering from addiction, and the whole city smelled horribly.
When I read this part of the chapter, I was brought back these memories of NYC. Of course, India and the United States are different, but these same concepts still exist. It makes me wonder how I had been conditioned from a young age to idealize places like NYC, LA, or Miami. I think it is a part of American culture and media, and it leads me to my question. Instead of having pride in our big cities, should we have more disdain ?
I found the statement within the Swaraj that interested me.
“Politics, economics, ethics, aesthetics, and spirituality, according to Gandhi, should operate interactively and not in isolation from one another.”
As this outlines the importance of these ideas to culture,
I’m curious whether this means that in order to create these ideals of uniformity and how society is currently run, are these the leverage points of choice? And is isolating these ideas and aspects of culture what dependency bridges on?
Another quote that this leads me to is that
“A transformation in the existing religious consciousness must occur. Otherwise, there would be unresolved tension between the old religious consciousness and the new civic consciousness.”
As this makes me wonder whether once a thought process similar to consumerism is formed psychologically in society. whether that thought process of culture over consumerism or vice versa is the psychological and “unresolved tension” that we currently experience in environmentalism?
-Megan Langlois
(I always forget my name)
A theme that was consistent in the dialogue between the reader and editor was this “debate” over if Englishman themselves or civilization is the problem in India. I personally saw colonization as the issue because it progressed partly with the belief that civilization was the best way to modernize because it encompassed ideas that were seen as superior. Though a quote from page 33 made me think differently about what the editor is trying to communicate about civilization. “Is not due to any particular fault of the English people, but the condition is due to modern civilization.” Further on page 17 it says, “if we shun every Englishman as an enemy. Home Rule will be delayed. But if we are just to them, we shall receive their support in our progress towards the goal.” Both quotes embody a theme which is insinuating that the individual is not the issue but rather the structural institutions that were imposed upon them. This is why I link it to colonization because Britain is the oppressor that has been imposing ideas and methods that they deemed as superior through the explanation that civilization is the best and only way to adapt. With this said, do you think that individual action can dismantle structural inequalities?
Dez
“My first complaint is that India is becoming irreligious… We are turning away from God.”
In the chapter discussing India’s spiritual decline, Gandhi expresses his concerns about the loss of religious and moral values in the country due to modern civilization. Gandhi emphasizes that India is moving away from spiritual pursuits towards material wealth, leading to a weakening of religious principles.
He advocated for the idea that true wealth lies in inner contentment and spiritual fulfillment rather than in the accumulation of material possessions.
The shift towards materialism and the loss of spiritual values are challenges faced not just by India but by societies globally in the modern era. How can individuals and communities strive for simplicity and spirituality in a materialistic world that often leads to a shift away from religious principles and ethical conduct? What practices or principles can help people stay connected to their spiritual roots amidst the pursuit of material wealth and modern comforts?
Aaron Batty
I found it interesting where Gandhi had criticized the Indian people because of their use of violence in fighting oppression, whereas Gandhi encouraged the use of peaceful and nonviolent resistance as a means of fighting oppression. Is the violence in “our” communities the reason that Gandhi said that civilization is something that we must escape? and why did he state that we must escape into the wilderness and leave civilization? what has led to our civilization becoming something that needs to be escaped?
-Perry Daughtry
Ghandi goes into great detail about the many ways in which English culture has seeped into the everyday lives of Indians. He describes lawyers and doctors as “treasure-seeking”, the former fueling others’ quarrels and the latter making the sick and wounded dependent on pills that weaken the mind and is a mere band-aid approach to healing.
“I have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, a doctor cures me, the odds are that I shall repeat the vice. Had the doctor not intervened, nature would have done its work, and I would have acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed from vice, and would have become happy.”
According to Ghandi the role of doctors is not one of morality, but rather selfishness and greed. They create temporary solutions that don’t fix the root cause of the illness, and result in an unnatural dependence on medicine. I have similar feelings towards modern medicine. Doctors are quick so quick to recommending expensive surgeries or antibiotics as the best solution. I think these might be helpful as a last resort, but only after scanning every other mode of healing. First we should take an honest glance at our relationship with the body and mind, and ask ourselves if we are truly taking care of our needs. I must say though, this is definitely easier said than done, especially amidst the chaos of modern day society. We are constantly being pulled this way and that by greed, consumption, fear, and individualism.
My question: How can we reclaim medicine and healing as a more holistic and authentic practice?
Grady Isaacs
In the reading, Ghandi puts outs the idea of breaking the connection of colonialism in India. Using simple language and putting his idea in laymans terms so that even people of lower education levels can understand and grasp the idea in which he is trying to explain. By speaking in this way he was able to leave India to be a free standing nation.
Ghandi speaks about disconnect and unrest. This. disconnect is what eventually leads to unrest. In order to break the binds of disconnect is to be unrestful.
My question is what is the line in which a society or community is in disconnect and where does the line of unrest begin in order to change and reach the level of unrest that ghandi is referring to?
Gandhi writes that it’s feeble to blame the English for their occupation in India, but rather recognize that it was the people of India who welcomed the English into their nation in the first place in the hopes to profit from trade. He believes at the root of it all, they willingly gave the country to the English. AS time goes on, Gandhi says that India keeps becoming more modern and irreligious, and is approaching the point of no return.
My question is: Could Gandhi view a society that meshes modernity with the sacred life that religion brings?